Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

3 results

  • Dissemination and implementation science activities across the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium: Report from a survey of CTSA leaders

  • Rowena J. Dolor, Enola Proctor, Kathleen R. Stevens, Leslie R. Boone, Paul Meissner, Laura-Mae Baldwin
  • Journal:
    Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 4 / Issue 3 / June 2020
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 September 2019, pp. 188-194
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Introduction:

    Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is not a formal element of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program, and D&I science activities across the CTSA Consortium are largely unknown.

    Methods:

    The CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation Working Group surveyed CTSA leaders to explore D&I science-related activities, barriers, and needed supports, then conducted univariate and qualitative analyses of the data.

    Results:

    Out of 67 CTSA leaders, 55.2% responded. CTSAs reported directly funding D&I programs (54.1%), training (51.4%), and projects (59.5%). Indirect support (e.g., promoted by CTSA without direct funding) for D&I activities was higher – programs (70.3%), training (64.9%), and projects (54.1%). Top barriers included funding (39.4%), limited D&I science faculty (30.3%), and lack of D&I science understanding (27.3%). Respondents (63.4%) noted the importance of D&I training and recommended coordination of D&I activities across CTSAs hubs (33.3%).

    Conclusion:

    These findings should guide CTSA leadership in efforts to raise awareness and advance the role of D&I science in improving population health.

  • Chapter 23 - New concepts and recommendations on clinical management and research

  • from Section 8: - Translation to obstetrics
  • Edited by Robert Pijnenborg, Ivo Brosens, Roberto Romero
  • Book:
    Placental Bed Disorders
    Published online:
    06 July 2010
    Print publication:
    03 June 2010, pp 256-270

  • Summary

    Comparative studies of placentation across mammals have been greatly facilitated by the availability of phylogenetic trees for the entire range of placental mammals based on molecular data. The three basic placenta types defined by Grosser on grounds of increasing invasiveness epitheliochorial, endotheliochorial, and hemochorial have routinely served as a basis for comparative discussions. Primates differ starkly from all other placental mammal orders because the two extreme kinds of placentation are represented, while the moderately invasive is not. Reliable inference of the primitive condition is an essential starting-point for successful reconstruction of the evolution of placentation in placental mammals. Having considered the general background to evolution of the placenta in primates, it is now possible to focus specifically on catarrhines Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. The architecture of the placenta is notably different in New World monkeys (platyrrhines), which diverged from catarrhines at least 40 mya.